KANSAS CITY — The Missouri Court of Appeals Western District has affirmed a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit filed by a Louisiana woman who worked remotely for a Missouri-based company.
The court ruled that because the employee did not suffer any alleged adverse employment impact while physically present in Missouri, she cannot pursue claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA).
In an opinion authored by Judge Mark D. Pfeiffer and joined by Presiding Judge Alok Ahuja and Judge Karen King Mitchell, the court upheld the dismissal of claims brought by Carrie Sciortino against her employer, Ozark National Life Insurance Company.
Sciortino, a resident and citizen of Louisiana, has worked from her home for the company since 2013 and never performed her job duties from within Missouri, even though the company is headquartered in Kansas City.
Sciortino alleged in her amended petition that she experienced discrimination based on age, sex and disability.
She claims she was discriminated against based on her dyslexia at the hands of her Missouri-based supervisor.
She claimed she was a top recruiter for the company but was micromanaged, had her ideas dismissed and was treated less favorably than younger, male and non-disabled employees.
When she reported what she believed to be discriminatory behavior to the company, she alleged that no corrective action was taken. On Nov. 1, 2022, her supervisor demoted her and removed her recruiting duties, a decision Sciortino stated was made from Missouri.
On Dec. 8, 2022, Sciortino filed a timely Charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, which later issued her a right-to-sue letter on Aug. 29, 2023.
She then filed suit, later submitting an amended petition in January 2024. Ozark National Life moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Sciortino failed to state a claim because the MHRA does not apply beyond Missouri’s borders.
The circuit court dismissed the case without specifying its reasoning, prompting Sciortino’s appeal.
On appeal, Sciortino argued that the MHRA’s text does not require an employee to suffer an adverse employment action while physically located in Missouri.
She also argued she had, in fact, suffered an adverse employment action sufficient to maintain her claim.
However, the appellate court held that both arguments were foreclosed by controlling Missouri Supreme Court precedent.
The appellate judges said they were constitutionally obligated to follow the Missouri Supreme Court’s interpretation.
The appeal noted several precedents and, in applying these precedents, the court held that Sciortino failed to plead facts demonstrating she suffered any adverse impact while physically in Missouri.
Without such allegations, her petition could not survive a motion to dismiss. The judges concluded that “while [Employee] may have been aggrieved, she was aggrieved in Louisiana,” and therefore had no actionable claim under the MHRA.
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, denying both of Sciortino’s points on appeal.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District case number: WD87848
